Rush raised a good question the other day....

Discussion in 'Free Speech Alley' started by LSUBayouBengals, Nov 17, 2004.

Page 1 of 2
  1. LSUBayouBengals

    LSUBayouBengals Guest

    Whatever happened to the neutron bomb? The bomb that leaves buildings in tact but kills the buildings inhabitants. Wouldnt that have been pretty convenient in Faluja in ridding it of the thugs?
     
    LSUBayouBengals, Nov 17, 2004
    #1
  2. TigerFan23

    TigerFan23 USMC Tiger

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2003
    Messages:
    3,143
    Likes Received:
    213
    I'd love to know how that worked? Sounds to me like some kind of chemical bomb. For one, too many civilians to worry about. Two, I don't think the U.S. Military is in the business of gassing people a la Saddam Hussein. But again, more importantly, loss of civilian life is way too much of a risk with that kind of bomb, IMO.
     
    TigerFan23, Nov 17, 2004
    #2
  3. CParso

    CParso Founding Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2004
    Messages:
    10,852
    Likes Received:
    368
    What about a gov't conspiracy for GWB's friends to get contracts and rebuild it!
     
    CParso, Nov 17, 2004
    #3
  4. LSUBayouBengals

    LSUBayouBengals Guest

    I would like to know how that works too. I dont think its chemical though, I'm kind of remembering something from school about it being a radio wave thing or something.
     
    LSUBayouBengals, Nov 17, 2004
    #4
  5. LSUBayouBengals

    LSUBayouBengals Guest

    Here it is, its a radiation thing.

    "Tactical neutron bombs are primarily intended to kill soldiers who are protected by armor. Armored vehicles are very resistant to blast and heat produced by nuclear weapons, but steel armor can reduce neutron radiation only by a modest amount so the lethal range from neutrons greatly exceeds that of other weapon effects. The lethal range for tactical neutron bombs can exceed the lethal range for blast and heat even for unprotected troops. Armor can absorb neutrons and neutron energy, thus reducing the neutron radiation to which the tank crew is exposed, but this offset to some extent by the fact that armor can also react harmfully with neutrons. Alloy steels for example can develop induced radioactivity that remains dangerous for some time. When fast neutrons are slowed down, the energy lost can show up as x-rays. Some types of armor, like that of the M-1 tank, employ depleted uranium which can undergo fast fission, generating additional neutrons and becoming radioactive. Special neutron absorbing armor techniques have also been developed, such as armors containing boronated plastics and the use of vehicle fuel as a shield."
     
    LSUBayouBengals, Nov 17, 2004
    #5
  6. tirk

    tirk im the lyrical jessie james

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2004
    Messages:
    47,369
    Likes Received:
    21,536
    depleted uranium is a nasty thing. the impurity amount is less than 1% like iodine in salt yet can kill everything when left behind.
     
    tirk, Nov 17, 2004
    #6
  7. TigerFan23

    TigerFan23 USMC Tiger

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2003
    Messages:
    3,143
    Likes Received:
    213
    Umm, yeah. I think I'll just take your word for it, because frankly, the only things I understood in that were the quotation marks.
     
    TigerFan23, Nov 17, 2004
    #7
  8. LSUBayouBengals

    LSUBayouBengals Guest

    :lol:
     
    LSUBayouBengals, Nov 17, 2004
    #8
  9. red55

    red55 curmudgeon Staff Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2002
    Messages:
    45,195
    Likes Received:
    8,736
    The "neutron bomb" was supposedly killed by Carter, but it actually lives on in modern nuclear weapons in which there is a great deal of flexibility in how one can tailor the explosion. These days they refer to them as "enhanced radiation" weapons, but it is the same thing.

    And it really doesn't kill people and leave buildings standing. I'd hate to own any property underneath one, its still a very big bomb. What it was designed to to was to kill Russians and leave German civilians standing.

    It works by having a very small fireball in relation to its lethal short-term radiation burst. It is supposed to be used in an airburst. In this fashion, the fireball never reaches the ground and doesn't throw up the huge mushroom cloud of debris that creates fallout and long-term radiation hazards downwind. The smaller explosion doesn't kill by blast and heat like a regular nuke, but it still flattens the area immediately under the airburst.

    Instead it kills by an intense burst of short-term radiation. Those within a mile or two will die in a few minutes or a few days depending on their exposure. But people only a little further away will not be harmed since the blast and heat didn't reach them and there is no significant fallout from an airburst.

    The idea was to make the weapon more threatening to the Soviets. By the late cold war, the Soviets were beginning to question whether or not we would actually be willing to stop their invasion with nuclear weapons. Such a defense would kill millions of German civilians and render the country contaminated, not only for our troops to retake it, but for civilian reoccupation. The Soviets planned to invade very close to the cities so we would be afraid to use the nukes.

    But with neutron weapons we could kill a russian armored unit without harming German civilians nearby, making it much more likely that we would use them. An added advantage is that our troops could move right into the area since there would be no lingering radiation from the high-intensity burst.

    However the European "Greens" objected and concocted the brilliant "kills people but leaves buldings standing" slogan and made it sound like an inhumane weapon, when it was actually the opposite. So Carter "killed" it. But in fact most modern nuclear weapons are practically "dial-an-effect" with adjustible yields and adjustible "enhanced radiation" capability. So, although the term "neutron bomb" was killed, most of the tactical nuclear weapons in our inventory now have ER capability.
     
    red55, Nov 18, 2004
    #9
  10. Sourdoughman

    Sourdoughman TigerFan of LSU and the Tigerman

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2003
    Messages:
    12,326
    Likes Received:
    575
    Another great post by Red!
    I'd give you rep points for that but I have to spread some around first.
    I can't follow a post like that very well, oh well.

    Why can't we make a bomb that sucks the air out of an area for 2 minutes or so?
    I think that would do the trick, everything left in tact and that does the trick with
    no radiation.
    Perfect for Iran, Syria, Pakistan, Palestine and everywhere else this sickness is.
     
    Sourdoughman, Nov 18, 2004
    #10
Page 1 of 2

Share This Page